Posted
by
Soulskill
on Sunday June 20, 2010 @09:27AM
from the customer-is-always-ripe dept.

Presto Vivace sends in a report from David Pogue at the New York Times, who learned from a Verizon customer service representative that the company has implemented a policy of punishing employees who suggest certain service blocks to customers looking to avoid unwanted or accidental fees. According to the representative, offering (for example) a web access block or premium SMS block without the customer asking for it can now lead to a reprimand or outright termination. The CSRs have also been directed to avoid issuing credits for such charges. "Essentially, we are to upsell customers on the $9.99 25mb/month or $29.99 unlimited packages for customers. Customers are not to be credited for charges unless they ask for the credit. And in cases such as data or premium SMS, where the occurrences may have gone months without the consumer noticing, only an initial credit can be issued."

It is in the "this is so outrageously disgusting that it can't possibly be true" sense of the word.

People who would offer service blocks are the same people who would endear a customer to the service provider as the company would then appear to show concern and interest in the customer's needs and interests. "Caring about the customer" was once the hallmark of a good and confident business and people were literally attracted to such companies. As I was growing up, this sort of behavior was simply normal and when a company didn't behave that way, I would tend to blame the employee rather than the company. Seeing this simply firms up my feeling about Verizon... and I mean ALL of Verizon.

Without fail, every service channel provided Verizon whether it is Verizon wireless, Verizon FiOS, Verizon business PRI service, Verizon T1 data service, Verizon DS3 or simply Verizon POTS is simply rife with bad customer service. Once the service is working, it stays working -- no complaints there, but every time PEOPLE get involved there are problems and while I have always suspected it came from the top, my suspicions have been increasingly with added evidence and now I get this story to add to it. I literally had to email the executive vice president of business sales to get ANY attention to my problems at all. The business office people would NOT respond to my emails or phone calls. And when I contacted their bosses I would get something along the lines of "I'll get someone on it right now!" and then nothing. Hell, even the EVP of sales didn't respond to her own email mail... she sent it to a lackey who is "showing interest" by investigating my claims before taking any action. So far, several days and NO action... just "showing interest" and "investigating."

* I would never willingly be a Verizon Customer * The character of the company is so rotten and corrupt that it simply makes me sick. If anyone wants this EVP's contact information I would be happy to provide it. They need a COMPLETE earful.

Yea, I made seventeen phone calls in to the four departments to get a DSL dry loop line. You have to get really aggressive to get anything done. There ARE some service saints in there somewhere, so when you get one, get their ID number or sometimes first and last name and then ask for them.

Re your last line, I AM willingly a (disgusted) customer because I think Comcast is worse! Last I recalled on the Evil front, Verizon was SLIGHTLY less evil.

Very true. As a CSR your treated like shit by the customer because of restrictive policies that keep you from doing a good job and your treated like shit by the management because you are so easily replaced they don't have to care.

My usual line when it comes to Phone reps is that 20% will be fired within 3 months because they just got the job for the 6 weeks or so of paid training (I knew someone who decided to quit by just putting his headset on the table and reading a book, still in the phone queue, lasted a month before they found out his calls were just dead air) 70% are doing their jobs just to the letter and don't give a shit about you or the job their doing and 10% actually care and try to do what's best for you. That 10% usually quit after 6 months to a year from stress and disillusionment.

I work for Fido Wireless now. Our website actually gives you the steps and walks your through them for a complaint escalation all the way up to the ombudsman. I can, without fear of reprecusions advise customers exactly how to get what they need. I also don't work the phones anymore.

No, the 10% get fired when their bosses find out that they're trying to help the customers.

Actually, 5% get fired. The other 5% get fucked over repeatedly by the company until they quit, which looks better on the books. Things like:

Reprimanded severely for "missing critical training" that was announced and took place during the person's (approved) vacation or during a medical emergency.

Shifts changed repeatedly (day to evening to graveyard and back) or made insane (a day of 12 hours, a day of 8, 2 days of 4, a day of 12).

Supervisor changed repeatedly without notice.

Security harassing a specific person several days in a row because their car was parked improperly (where 'improperly' is trivial stuff like being 2 inches off being perfectly parallel with the parking space lines, not stuff like taking up two spaces). Though I admit that could've just been the security guards being dicks.

Looking at Fido's escalation process, 'Step 2' is where it fails all the time. The last time I had a problem that customer service couldn't resolve, I asked to speak to a manager, wherein the rep replied that all the managers were in a meeting and no one could take my call. Every single one. At the same time. And no one could field problems. Took my number down and said a manager would call me in 24 hours. When no one did, I called back, and once again I got the same line that every manager was in a meeting

I've met your twin. Customer service was incapable of doing anything more than running through their meaningless checklist, and were completely stymied when I informed them that I didn't have a Windows computer in the house. I finally got hold of a guy who was able to ask pertinent questions, and fix my lack of DSL. I wrote his name down, and I always ask for him when I have any reason to call.

Funny thing is, he isn't customer service anymore. He's been promoted to a a manager's position.

I'll give credit where credit is due though. Today, my DSL provider has something there for the reps. If you call in, tell them that you have a Mac or a *nix box, they turn their little pages to the chapter titled "Mac users" or "Linux users". The support still isn't much, but at least they know how to "escalate" a problem.

Parenthetically - WTF is it with escalating a problem? I want a problem SOLVED, not escalated. I'm not fighting a band of rebels in the jungle, and I don't need artillery called in, with an airstrike. I just want the damned server rebooted, or the networking services on the router restarted, no escalations please.

(I knew someone who decided to quit by just putting his headset on the table and reading a book, still in the phone queue, lasted a month before they found out his calls were just dead air)

Did he get an award for his low call times before they realized? Where I worked we had someone who kept telling people to buy a new printer cable no matter what the problem with the printer was. Ink leaking out the bottom? New cable! Grinding noises? New cable! Windows says you need a driver? New cable! Kept her call times damn low, so much so that people were told to emulate her.

I was in that ten percent. Got a job with a sub-contractor for VZW (it was ABSOLUTELY verboten to tell ANYBODY that I wasn't working directly for Verizon Wireless)

Same for us with an HP subcontractor.

At least you were screwing Verizon over while you were screwing the customers. When I worked for an outsourced HP call center, our supervisors basically said to us "We get paid for number of phone calls we process for HP, not quality of service. Use every trick you can to get the person off the line. If they're on dialup, tell them to download something. If they're on highspeed, tell them to turn everything off for an hour and then call back. And if you can't get rid o

Well said. Bravo. Rather than accept such attitudes, people should tell Verizon exactly why they're leaving and leave. In my case, I did and went to Sprint who happens to also have much better service and coverage in my area. While Sprint's CS hasn't been completely stellar, it's well above Verizon's, and like erroneus, I always suspected it came from the top. If I hadn't already made the change, I would be making it right now. No-one should tolerate such business practices. Additionally, since they are making a policy of refusing to credit accidental charges, I wonder if that doesn't fall directly under deceptive trade practices since they obviously know that such charges are being unintentionally incurred, and they are knowingly profiting off such as well as implementing policies specifically intended to profit off these deceptive practices.

On the other side of this, I have worked as a phone rep. In fact I have worked at a contractor who at the time had the Verizon account. I'm not sure if that contractor still does Verizon support, but they take pride in following such practices..."whatever the client wants" even if that client is plainly screwing the customer. Today's version of 'customer service' has made me so disillusioned I am strongly considering getting out of tech and into something like food services, where good customer service and providing quality goods is actually still appreciated and is even rewarded to a large degree.

Verizon CRS: Thank you for calling Verizon.
Customer: I'd like to block all of your special services on my Verizon account.
Verizon CRS: Oh, OK.... I'll need to get special permission for that. Have you submitted that request in writing? We can only accept it in writing.
Customer: In writing? You're a phone company!
Verizon CRS: Not just a phone company - we offer many extra wonderful and expensive services.
Customer: But I don't want any of those extra wonderful and expensive services.
Verizon CRS: I'm very sorry to hear that, but I can't hear you. You'll have to submit that in writing.
Customer: Are you kidding me?
Verizon CRS: No sir. We take our billing practices very seriously. Did you know that blocking all special extra wonderful services includes blocking all incoming and outgoing calls?
Customer: What?
Verizon CRS: Yes, those are part of the 'Premium Call Package'.
Customer: What does the 'Basic' call package include?
Verizon CRS: The opportunity for us to offer you many special extra wonderful and expensive services.
Customer: But I don't want those!
Verizon CRS: Submit your request in writing. Please allow 6 - 8 weeks for processing. There is a $9.99 charge for terminating each of our many special extra wonderful services. Thank you for calling Verizon.

This Verizon policy is just like in the Incredibles! People working there will have to find ways around it...

MRS. HOGENSON: [sobbing] I'm on a fixed income, and if you can't help me,I don't know what I'll do. [blows nose loudly] [sobbing]

BOB: All right, listen closely. I'd like to help you, but Ican't. I'd like to tell you to take a copy of your policy to Norma Wilcoxon...[whispering] Norma Wilcox. W-l-L-C-O-X. On the third floor. But I can't. Ialso do not advise you to fill out and file a WS2475 form with our legaldepartment on the second floor. I wouldn't expect someone to get back to youquickly to resolve the matter. I'd like to help, but there's nothing I can do.

Remember that only because someone is stating something, that does not make it reality. Also a contract term is not a law. Not even remotely.For that to be the case, you first have to buy into their bullshit delusional reality. Secondly, sign that contract. And third, actually accept it as being a legal practice. (A contract term is still illegal when it’s not legal, even when you signed it!)

Protip (obviously): Don’t make such contracts.If that means no phone, no Internet, and no everything, the

That's actually not that far from the truth. Frankly, I'm surprised this wasn't their policy in the first place.

We went for approximately a year trying to get Verizon to block incoming SMS on one of our lines. Apparently someone with many stupid, non-English speaking friends didn't notify any of them of their number change.

Even after we repeatedly asked to block the SMS, they wouldn't do it (saying it wasn't possible). "We can't block incoming SMS" and other such nonsense - but we'll gladly charge you $$$ f

They do work for Verizon, however, who do you think is more likely to get laid off in event of a massive exodus from Verizon? The CSRs? Or the corporate execs?

Simply put, I'm glad that I opted to go with a different carrier when I read about things like this. Sure my carrier isn't any better, but at least being on GSM allows me to choose my carrier without having to buy a new phone.

being on GSM allows me to choose my carrier without having to buy a new phone.

If you are in the United States, and you use mobile data, switching GSM carriers means all you'll get is EDGE. AT&T phones don't work on T-Mobile's UMTS band, nor vice versa. Besides, among the four major U.S. carriers, only T-Mobile gives the customer any discount on the "SIM-only" plan for buying or bringing a phone as opposed to subsidizing one.

Ideally, CDMA2000 should make switching just as easy as GSM/UMTS, with a removable CSIM that you can put in your existing CDMA2000 phone. But CSIM hasn't b

Yes, this use of different standards is done in the name of competition, so that the customer has more choice and can receive better service than if the FCC arbitrarily picked a single wireless standard that all of the companies needed to use.

Once again, free enterprise saves the day and makes your life a little better/easier!

All snarking aside - this is a case of CSRs forgetting who they work for. They work for Verizon - NOT the customer. They have to keep "what is best for Verizon" in mind when dealing with customers.

All snarking aside - this is a case of Verizon forgetting who they work for. They work for the Customers - NOT the money. They have to keep "what is best for Customers" in mind when dealing with money.

Yeah, I know I am full of crap. I hate big soulless companies too. But if their policy is to screw their customers at every turn, they will lose me as a customer.

All snarking aside - this is a case of Verizon forgetting who they work for. They work for the Customers - NOT the money. They have to keep "what is best for Customers" in mind when dealing with money.

Yeah, I know I am full of crap. I hate big soulless companies too. But if their policy is to screw their customers at every turn, they will lose me as a customer.

You are completely wrong. No business works for the customer, ever. The customer is a source of income - a market to sell their wares. They do the best they can to maximize the consumption of their product. A business can be about the money and the customers (it's actually a really good strategy for getting more money - a net gain for everybody), and indeed a large consideration for what the customer will buy is necessary, but it cannot only be about the customers. If they were, everything would be fr

Actually, every company that provides a contract service does in a very clear and legal sense work for the customer. When companies forget this, the market (and often courts) provide intense and painful reminders to that company.

Wow, I'd hate to live in your world. Here, there are lots of situations in which mutually advantageous trade can take place. You do business with a company if the result of doing so benefits both of you.

I used to work for a mid-sized drugstore chain that's since been bought out. I have a lasting memory about this very subject...

At my store, it was practice for us that if someone was buying an item and didn't know there was a weekly coupon out for it, we would tell them about the coupon and scan it for them. (This, despite guidance from our district management that "coupons are intended to attract new customers, not lower prices for existing customers, coupons should not be offered to people who don't know about them.")

One time, when I did this for an elderly woman who was shopping with a friend, she turned to her friend and said "That's why I love coming to this store. They look out for you here."

There is an old rule in business that one happy customer tells 10 people, one unhappy customer tells 100 people. With the Internet, they probably now tell 1000 or more people. Another important rule of thumb was that it costs 7 times as much, on average, to attract one new customer as it takes to retain an existing one.

For something like a telephone, where you pay a regular amount, this is really important. If you retain a customer, they keep paying you every month. If you lose a customer, you lose a regular income and have to spend a capital sum attracting a replacement customer. Good customer service shows up as a line item on the expenses side of the budget, but in the medium term it gets you more money than it costs.

I beg to differ. A company can survive without shareholders at all if they have enough loyal customers built through great customer service. On the other hand, a company that is shedding customers through poor customer service is likely to trigger a huge stock sell off. In either event, customer service is VERY important.

I expected something like this. In West Virginia, they sold their landlines to Frontier after being hit with huge fines by the PSC for poor customer service and long outages. The sale was b

Maybe I'm just an idealistic capitalist, but having informed consumers is the (ostensible) basis upon which our economic system is built. If companies cannot be expected to provide the information required to make capitalism work properly, we have a much larger problem that cries for a regulatory intervention, much as I hate to say it.

Going by most of the comments on/., it seems anything and everything is justified in name of capitalism as long as it benefits any company and results into profit. ("the company is only responsible to the share holders" mantra). The sacred religion of capitalism is truly untouched by evils of doing-the-right-thing. Look at Apple and their new avatar of taking away all the freedom and getting away with great rewards, and all I see here is fanbois fapping on the company and it's messiah.

All snarking aside - this is a case of CSRs forgetting who they work for. They work for Verizon - NOT the customer. They have to keep "what is best for Verizon" in mind when dealing with customers.

100% agree. Anyone working in any "customer service" department of a business is not there to look out for the customer's best interest, they're there to look out for the business's best interest. In a mature business / market, customer service is important, and to some degree the CSRs have to start actually hel

Verizon employs a volley of interesting tactics targeted at nickle and diming the consumer. Eventually, they will completely destroy their reputation and at some point the consumers shift will force them to blink.

Only when the loss is great enough will they attempt to make some turns. However, given this is a McDonalds nation driven on advertising rather than informed decisions it will take some time.

Looking out for the customer's best interest in terms of the services that the business offers is in the best interest of the business.

Quite. Bean counters don't see this. They don't see the customers walking away...

I happen to be a Certified bean counter and you couldn't possibly be more wrong. If you ever want to understand what is going on in a company, ask the accountants. They know exactly how many customers have walked away, how much money those customers were worth, how expensive those customers were to service, etc. Most of the time they even know exactly why those customers left. If you want to know where the bodies are buried (so to speak) in a company, ask the accountants. But knowledge is not control and blaming the "bean counters" really is a case of shooting the messenger. The finance and accounting geeks just provide analysis and reporting in most cases. They don't control the purse strings.

Accountants are perfectly well aware of the value of good customer service. Accountants however (usually) don't control what gets funding and what doesn't and they certainly don't control how customer service is managed. An accountant's job is to present accurate financial information to management. Ultimately it is management's choice to provide (or not provide) good quality customer service. If you want to blame anyone for bad customer service, the blame starts right at the top where it belongs.

All snarking aside - this is a case of CSRs forgetting who they work for. They work for Verizon - NOT the customer. They have to keep "what is best for Verizon" in mind when dealing with customers.

They work for Verizon... Which makes its money off its customers... Lose the customers, lose the money, lose the job. It's that simple. Ultimately, the customers are the ones providing your paycheck.

I used to work at Electronics Boutique. I took pride in my job and went out of my way to make sure that the customer left happy. This meant that I would often ignore our product of the month - a game or device that we were supposed to push on people whether they wanted it or not. I would, instead, recommend products that people would actually enjoy.

I had a number of customers who came back to the shop repeatedly specifically because of my service. They would come back and ask me specifically if there was something new available that I thought they'd like - because I actually considered their preferences and past purchases rather than telling them to buy whatever our home office was selling.

This resulted in many repeat sales for Electronics Boutique, even though I wasn't doing what the home office thought was best.

By contrast, my manager was one hell of a salesman. He could convince anyone to buy anything. We had a couple come in looking for a PS2 for their kid for Christmas. He convinced them that the Xbox was a far better system (and it just so happened to be the product of the month). They bought the Xbox.

After Christmas they came back in to return the Xbox, because it wasn't what their kid wanted. It didn't play the games that their kid already owned. It didn't play the games that their kid wanted. They were quite annoyed at my manager for ignoring their desires and selling them the wrong product. They wanted to know why he ignored the fact that they had Playstation games they wanted to play. They wanted to know why he didn't tell them that the games they wanted were Playstation exclusives.

They didn't buy a PS2 from us. They just returned the Xbox. They then went across the hall and bought a PS2 from our competition - even though we had them in-stock for the same price.

I don't know if they ever came back and bought anything else from us... But that was at least one sale that was lost because my manager did what the home office thought was best.

What is best for the customer is, ultimately, what is best for Verizon - whether Verizon realizes that or not.

Shaft your customers enough and they'll switch to a different company.

Do you realize on average about 1 every 2 months there are changes to multiple things such as the privacy policy, contract and a number of other things that, if you don't agree with the changes, you can terminate your service without paying the fee. People don't pay attention to their bill so they don't realize when these things happen. Same thing for credit cards. They are basically changing the contract, which if you do not agree to the new contract, you don't have to live with it, and they can't make you pay for it.

Basically if you get your bill and notice there is a change to ANY part of the contract or service agreement(Such as trying to force you to a different plan or changing procedures for billing) This is a change to the original contract you signed with the carrier. Look for your provider to bury changes to Terms of Service with your bill. Quite often providers modify their service plans, much of the time the modification is a benefit. It doesn't matter, this voids the previous contract. Read the small print on those inserts included with your bill, it will spell out that you have 30 days (may vary on where you live) to cancel your contract with no charge simply because they changed the contract.
Pay attention to how it tells you to cancel because sometimes that's very important. But remember if you pay that bill before this, most time it is look at as if you agree to the new changes and henceforth the new contract.

A company that figured that they could actually continue to exist by making normal to minimal profit margins, not throwing those profits blindly to shareholders or execs, and instead building up cash reserves and then actually providing more and better service as the focus of their company, rather than considering their corporate motive to be excessive profit?

Crazy idea, I know.

But see here's the thing; if I had a company--and I'm no businessman or economist, and maybe I'm missing practical considerations--

It is very likely the customer service representatives who are offering those service blocks to better accommodate those customers are the better representatives who are actually trying to do a good job. And people wonder why customer service for some companies is so horrible, it is because of policies like this.

It is very likely the customer service representatives who are offering those service blocks to better accommodate those customers are the better representatives who are actually trying to do a good job. And people wonder why customer service for some companies is so horrible, it is because of policies like this.

Its the bean-counters' fault.Revenue losses from service blocks and credits are really easy to measure.Profits from customers made happy by good customer service are really hard to measure.So, as is frequently the case when organizations become hyper-focused on metrics,decisions get made that maximize metrics but don't make good business sense.

And how do you know how many customers would have left with poorer customer service, and how do you know how many more customers you would have retained/gained had you better customer service? Especially in the case of Verizon, who is consistently ranked at the top in surveys of customer satisfaction?

How do you count that?

It can be estimated, but an estimate always less trustworthy than a fact. The bean counters can say "We saved a million dollars last month by simply cutting out X." What if the effects

One of the metrics used quite extensively by the telecom company that I work for is "churn" this is the percentage of customers that leave the service. It is compared extensively with churn numbers from our competing carriers, as well as with our historic churn levels for previous quarters or years.The company is well aware of the cost to acquire a new customer, (they have it figured out down to fractions of a cent) and the churn rate for existing customers.

Although this doesn't help you see "why" someone left, you CAN see any trends based on various policies. (ie. we instituted policy "screw the customer" in Q1 2009, and in subsequent quarters we started to show a higher churn rate, maybe we should re-think that policy?)

Additionally whenever anyone cancels their service, A rep tries to get a reason out of the customer, this is obviously 2 fold, part of it is to try to keep them by offering some form of "save" deal, but the other one is to keep statistics on why people leave, if most people leave for "price" then you consider changes to pricing structure, if most people leave for "reliability" you consider upgrades to infrastructure, if most people leave for "customer service"... well... our execs still haven't decided what to do about that one... but I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually...

It's the bean-counters' fault.Revenue losses from service blocks and credits are really easy to measure.Profits from customers made happy by good customer service are really hard to measure.So, as is frequently the case when organizations become hyper-focused on metrics,decisions get made that maximize metrics but don't make good business sense.

I suppose if they performed long-term trending analysis they'd realize that after adopting a policy like the one they have just put in place, they will lose customer

I've read many comments about "bad customer service" but I'm not sure that they are accurate:
Those customers who are savvy enough to make an informed choice are not going to be affected by this policy and will interact with knowledgeable frendly CSR's or weak stupid CSR's and this policy would have no bearing on customer service, since they will pay attention, know their options, and ask for the services and options.
Those that don't will encounter the same good or bad CSR's and forge ahead in blissful

So, as is frequently the case when organizations become hyper-focused on metrics,
decisions get made that maximize metrics but don't make good business sense.

Quoted for emphasis. Excellent point. I think this problem is pervasive in our culture right now, even including our attempts to improve education.

Interestingly (at least I think it's interesting), it seems to me to be caused by the right-wing's insistence on "capitalism" as a moral system (i.e. short-term profits are the only thing that matters), mixed with the left-wing insistence on "science" as wisdom (i.e. nothing is true unless it's quantifiable and provable). It's like a perfect storm of dumb ideologies, with some general greed, incompetence, and stupidity thrown in for good measure.

Interestingly (at least I think it's interesting), it seems to me to be caused by the right-wing's insistence on "capitalism" as a moral system (i.e. short-term profits are the only thing that matters), mixed with the left-wing insistence on "science" as wisdom (i.e. nothing is true unless it's quantifiable and provable). It's like a perfect storm of dumb ideologies, with some general greed, incompetence, and stupidity thrown in for good measure.

It is very likely the customer service representatives who are offering those service blocks to better accommodate those customers are the better representatives who are actually trying to do a good job. And people wonder why customer service for some companies is so horrible, it is because of policies like this.

I'm likely to be one of the first to complain about bad service and practices, and I strongly dislike the way cell phone companies work in the US. However from TFA all I can see is a case of he said/she said. Is what the CSR said actually company policy, or is it just local management actions? Likewise I would expect a PR flunkie to say whatever in order to protect the company rather than saying the actual truth. But they will say the truth if it to the benefit of the company

The PR flunkie never contradicted the CSR: They kept saying that if the customer requests it, the CSRs should implement the block, and that the blocks were still available. And the no CSR will be fired for implementing a block that the customer requests. (Of course, they have to make sure the customer knows all the features they will be missing out on by having the block, by listing them all...)

The CSR said that the policy is that they are never to offer to the customer a block.

T-mobile, say what you will about its coverage. But it has excellent customer service. They voluntarily suggested these blocks, and they have lower rate plans for people out of contract who don't need subsidized phones. As the market is saturated, most people who want cell phones got them. Those who don't need/want premium service are happy with their two or three year old phones. T-mobile, and others who are offering lower rate plans without phone subsidies are going to retain these customers. And the nickle and dimers like AT&T and Verizon would find it difficult to peel off customers from them.

I fully agree with the T-Mobile recommendation. Another thing to try for those of you with minimal needs is one of the prepaid plans offered by some of the smaller carriers. These plans piggyback on the major provider's networks (you'll need to research to see who has paired up with whom), and they are substantially cheaper. My co-worker and his wife use these, and they pay about 100 bucks a year for both phones. There are frequently 2-for-1 minute top-off deals that come up. If you're frugal, you can get some good deals.

IMHO T-Mobile also has the best pre-paid plans in the US for a major carrier. I actually use a prepaid phone and for my usage I am paying well under half of what any of the contracted plans would pay. But then again I only use my phone as a phone so I don't need much in the way of functionality.

I second this. I have T-mobile and while their android phone selection is kind of sucking right now, I can still get away with wireless tethering for free and they have one of the largest caps (10 gigs). I've easily blown through 2-5 gigs already this month. They also just boosted their speeds locally and I'm now pulling like 2.5-4mbps, which is a lot better than the 1mbps I was getting previously. Don't know when I'll start to see speeds over 5mbps, but I should probably upgrade to the latest radio. The worst they do to the people that exceed their caps is drop them down to edge, which still at least leaves their phones somewhat usable. Every other provider wants to nickel and dime you to death. Boost is good for cheap phone service, but their network is terrible and nowhere even near edge quality. I'd feel pretty bad for anyone that bought their proposed android phone. Its going to be rather painful. Seems like sprint is content to milk the old nextel network for all its worth.

Maybe because they’re just not capable of being *that* evil, considering how on the German market, where they come from, they would be done and dead, if they dared to act like a US phone company.

I’m downright shocked by how you think you “got away” with wireless tethering.It’s a function of your phone, isn’t it? What gave anyone the idea that it is controllable or even acceptable to disable built-in functions that you’re STILL paying for. (You still pay for your ban

Also agree with T-mobile. When I wanted to unlock my phone they said "Sure!". I have also heard that they will support iPhone on their network. My only gripe is that in my own home I get at max 1 or 2 bars

The outstanding thing about T-Mobile is that they are forthright about their fees.

If some app on my Android phone decided to start eating bandwidth like mad, I'd just have to deal with EDGE speeds until the next billing cycle. If this happened on another provider, I'd be owing them a lot of cash.

My idea for a compromise: Have a maximum limit of bandwidth, and throttle (not kill) to EDGE speed once a user hits it. For example, the customer can buy x amount of bandwidth base per month, then authorized y mo

I have to agree. T-Mobile reps have always been willing to find ways to match their various plans and options to my needs and budget.

The consequence of this is that I've been with them for over six years, as opposed to the two I originally planned on.

Another T-Mobile story:

Some years back I got a credit on my account that I couldn't explain. Suspicious, I called T-Mobile and their rep assured me it was legit and not a mistake. It was a mistake. Four months later someone realized that they had given me a few

T-mobile has the lowest price for data-only service, at $40 monthly. This has been the case for years. If you've got your VOIP setup down, you already know this is all you need. One SIM allows easy-tethering also.

In my experience, this won't make any difference. They don't tell you about data/web blocks anyways. I happened to read a mention of that concept on/. shortly before getting my most recent phone. So I asked and got that without a problem. Yay.

Though I suppose the noteworthy bit here is to assume that there's hidden money to be had/saved when dissatisfied. Because ya, they don't tell you.

I'm pretty sure phones are designed to be one button away from a multiple dollar data fee if you don't have a data plan. Every phone I owned would happily connect to some webpage owned by the cell phone company and proceed to download 200-300k before you could figure out you hit the wrong button. Moreover, some of them have flat out refused to stop downloading the page until it's done, meaning that you just got dinged a megabyte on your ten cents per kilobyte lack of data plan.

Not that I believe AT&T has no problems, because it absolutely does. But I figure I use my iPhone more for data services than phone calls anyway and that's one of AT&T's strong areas. But at least I'm not giving my money to Verizon no matter how good their coverage is -- they're basically jackasses.

If Verizon doesn't want to sell these options to customers why are they even offering them? Why not just withdraw these options for new customers and only include them for people grandfathered in and already have them? What am I missing here?

We seriously need a federal regulation making blocking of excessive fees ($5,000 increase in phone bill due to teenage txting) automatic. Allow the user to put a definable cap on their bill which requires a phone call to the telco to exceed. "I never want to pay more than $300 on my bill." It would cut off all but emergency service and calls to the telco itself if it hit the cap. It could even cut off all but voice service as the cap was approached.

Verizon does allow users to turn on and off various blocking services on their website, but more people don't care enough to even make that much of a decision.

Agreed. I'd go a step further and require everybody to pick a maximum monthly charge when they sign up for their account - it can be as low as whatever number was advertised on the TV set (if they advertise an amount that doesn't cover fees, then the fees are on the telco). The telco can block service if you exceed your amount, but if they provide the service they can't bill you for it, and they can't carry it over to next month either, etc.

If somebody CHOOSES to spend $10k on data roaming that is their choice. I don't think we need price fixing (yet). However, people shouldn't be sold services they have no intention of actually buying. Cell phone companies are like the guys who run up and wash your windows in the city and then demand payment.

I really don't understand this attitude. There aren't "plenty of other companies to choose from", there are _maybe_ FOUR of any quality and coverage, and they all do the same thing. Simply taking the 'regulation bad, freedom good' line is moronic. Complaining about telco atrocities is almost a standard pastime here on Slashdot, yet when someone suggests a possible solution via actually forcing the telcos to stop raping the consumer the response is 'no regulation'? WTF?! Like they are going to suddenly get all warm and fuzzy and do it on their own?

No, the one thing we do NOT need is more federal regulation. There are plenty of other companies to choose from; pick a prepaid company and work with them.

This is the myth of the free market. The trouble is that this myth is predicated on an informed consumer being able to make a choice by being able to logically compare all the alternatives. There are two issues with this myth when confronted by the real world. First of all cell phone companies deliberately make the comparison of their services impossible by publishing data in the most obtuse fashion possible. Secondly when you do make an uninformed choice you can only act to select a different provider

The source claims that they can be fired if they suggest data blocks unless a customer specifically asks for them.

Verizon's defense was that no employee would be fired for adding a data block if a customer specifically asked for one.

What's really disturbing is that the reporter actually accepted this as a valid defense. Their answer covers when a customer specifically asks for a block, the firing in question occurs when a customer does not.

How specifically do the customers have to ask? Is asking for them to stop these ridiculous charges enough, or do you have to ask for a data block specifically? Would you still have to request download blocking, Vcast blocking, etc. by name?

They designed the phone interface to maximize the frequency of these charges, I'm pretty sure they make stopping them as difficult as possible. As far as companies go, Verizon is among the lowest of the low.

I was given the task of overseeing our company's 102 user Verizon phone bill each month back in Oct. 09. Each month I downloaded the new bill Verizon they put up in an XML format and I threw it into my database. I reduced the bill from about $6000 to $5000 in simple waste and no reduction in service - I could easily drop another $750 with minimal impact affecting only the abusers. Anyways, I noticed in April Verizon started to charge about 60% of the users with a new $1.99 for 1MB usage charge. Now I've seen this 1MB usage charge before, but it was always with one of our users that downloaded a ringtone or had access to the mobile web - it was always attached to something they did. When I called Verizon and spoke with their CSR I asked what the 1MB charge and have they changed anything because there were all these new $1.99 fees. I was told there had been no changes and when I gave them specific examples of users with these fees they said it was for this or that. I had at this point almost 6 months of data and I gave counter-examples for each explanation of what these new 1MB charges were for.

The rep was quickly overwhelmed by my examples and they said they would escalate my case to a tier 2 technical representative. Days go by and I finally get the explanation that the 1MB was for connecting to Verizon's Mobile Web - which was total crap because it's blocked and you can't actually connect. When I asked for clarification they said it was for "trying to connect" even though it is blocked on our plan. I was not satisfied because we went from 2 explainable $1.99 1MB charges a month up to 60+ the next and so the representative requested all of my examples. Two weeks go by and I start to get complaints from our users that they can't text even though they personally pay for text plans. I found out that all of my examples were given full data blocks by the CSR. I had to call and make them reverse all their unauthorized changes but we are still up about $120 each month due to these new charges. It pisses me off to no end and I requested to personally meet with our Verizon rep but that was denied by management and I was told to just let the $120/mo go.

I know people gripe about every large company, but Verizon has provided very good service to us. Regarding this issue, we received 2 unsolicited premium SMS messages for $10 each. We called them, and Verizon refunded the charges and suggested blocking premium SMS (which we did).

And in cases such as data or premium SMS, where the occurrences may have gone months without the consumer noticing, only an initial credit can be issued.

I'm not sure which legislative body was asleep at the switch, but AT&T does the same thing with billing mistakes. They can make mistakes in billing and charge you too much for months or even years. However when you bring up their mistake, by law they only have to credit you for the amount on the latest bill.

The above situation is one of the many situations that reenforces my belief that the government and corporations do not only not have the consumer's best interests in mind, they also aren't concerned about being held accountable. If I'm a contractor and I defraud a customer due to a "billing error", they can take me to court and sue my ass off. Yet Verizon, AT&T (and probably other telcos that I haven't had personal experience with) can defraud people for extended periods of time, and their liability is legally limited to the last billing cycle.

Sure. T-mobile won't nickel and dime you and they have generous caps on data. I've never paid more on my bill than the original stated amount. If you already have a compatible phone you can go month to month, contract free, or you can pay the full amount for the phone and avoid the contract. I was kind of dumb and did the contract, but I really have no complaints at all as I'm only paying like $30 more than I was before for just voice/sms and I can wirelessly tether with my laptop. They just bumped local sp

They will even help out with suggesting service plans and whatnot. I actually had to push to bump my minutes above the next tier. (I kept going over and I decided to just make it impossible to go over.) The csr on the line said, "you don't appear to ever use that many."

They will even help out with suggesting service plans and whatnot. I actually had to push to bump my minutes above the next tier. (I kept going over and I decided to just make it impossible to go over.) The csr on the line said, "you don't appear to ever use that many."

My experience with T-Mobile has been the same. When we call (we have four lines), they go out of their way to remind us that we've got a new free phone available on our contract, offered to switch us to cheaper plans than ones we were selecting (when we called to add a few lines) that included more services, let us know when new pricing (their recent plan pricing reductions) were available and offered to switch us to the newer cheaper plans and on and on.

T-mobile call-in customer support is the best of all the big 4 -- And I've had them all, at the same time actually.

I worked for T-Mobile (Indirect) for just under a year, and then for Best buy Mobile (which in my area did Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T)
For the first year at BBM I had a line with all 4 carriers (Discounted, being a sales rep for all the companies) and I frequently called all 4 on a regular basis -- as some actions require you call in, including calling t-mobile when the customers had them and were switching.

My experience showed t-mobile had a consistently well trained staff of CSR's. The only problem with T-Mobile was coverage. Eventually I came to the conclusion that, if signal is fine where you use it, T-Mobile provided the best end-user experience especially when factoring in 'problems' that required customer service help.

Some common issues:
1. ~70% of T-Mobile standing stores are *NOT* Corporately owned by T-Mobile. A large percentage of AT&T And Sprint stores are NOT corporately owned. In these stores your experience will vary but T-Mobile offers their indirect dealers free training by their corporate staff. T-Mobile also is adamant about NOT SIGNING YOU UP if you have poor coverage.
2. T-Mobile's "Coverage map" is the most accurate of all 4 carriers. Verizons coverage map does not give you 'strong' 'moderate' 'weak'.. If you get 1/2 a bar (and thus frequently dropped calls) well.. your call connected, your covered! AT&T I'd put at 2nd best for coverage maps, but TMobile is far, far ahead in honesty here.
3. Customer service hates getting yelled at, avoid the yelling stage at least for 10-15 minutes
4. Sprint's Customer service generally is fairly good, if you can get one of them on the line, you're nice to the rep (after waiting 2-3 hours--though that's getting better), and you're not 'abusing' the system
5. If you buy from an indirect dealer, use them to make any changes for the next 6 months to help avoid breach of secondary contracts. Indirect dealers can frequently give you a better deal ONLY IF YOU COMMIT to features for 6 months. Otherwise the carrier revokes the commission they pay the indirect store and makes them pocket the loss for the phone at that point (so the indirect store *must* have a 2ndary contract to stay in business) -- same with ETF's.
6. Verizon has the "largest 3G network" but their technology limits their maximum speed to be about 60% of what AT&T & T-Mobile can get on 3G. If you have a "3.5g" (HSDPA+) AT&T or T-Mobile phone that variance grows even more -- Assuming you're (a) covered by t-mobile, and (b) not in New York on AT&T

Sadly, I have to agree with you. Those contracts are usually long and very hard to read, but they are the terms under which you receive their service, so you need to know them, or prepared to be unpleasantly surprised (which is most peoples' method, apparently).

Actually, forcing myself to read these contracts has been a great deterrent to signing up for things I don't really need.

The problem is Verizon is so big that until they start seeing hundreds of thousands or millions leave their service, they're not likely to do much. What's more, they can afford to slough off several million before they get too scared. If the iPhone moves to Verizon, prepare for things to get worse CS wise.

OTOH, this is a great opportunity for the other carriers. People hate AT&T and Verizon has seen enough growth that they can afford to let CS slide. Sprint has had ever-increasing CS ratings over the